Maneuvering On The Ground With Differential Braking

[Thundersmoke]

So I’m basically living in the Corsair on Grayflag Normandy (heretical for Normandy, I know) with many, many extended sorties, spawns, launches, landings, repairs, rearms, taxis, takeoffs, etc. both before and after the update yesterday.

Mission winds are 3m/s or about 6 knots from 285°.  The carrier hauls ass at about 27kts IIRC.

Taxiing on the ground is obnoxious but doable.  With some pedal, brake, and throttle dancing I’m able to get turned around, back-taxi, use the taxiways, even through the wind, etc.

On the carrier’s upwind leg, no chance.  Insanely strong weathervaning.  I drop the flaps and let the wind push me backwards on the deck if needed.  On the downwind leg I do the same but have to lighten the plane first.

Overall, the Corsair is  now my go-to for air-to-ground and I’m having a ton of fun with it despite the frustrations.  No new in-flight vibrations as mentioned above, and no initial damage that has precluded takeoffs or landings.

That said, it’s never good when I catch myself thinking, “I’d rather be taxiing a Spitfire.”  This is definitely the #1 bug for me now.

I understand that for some missions the conditions might be worse.  But there’s a ton of fun still to be had while we wait for a fix if folks are so inclined.  Group boat ops are probably impossible for now, but saying it’s grounded or impossible to use is somewhere between situational and misleading.

[JupiterJoe]

37 minutes ago, Thundersmoke said:

 No new in-flight vibrations as mentioned above, and no initial damage that has precluded takeoffs or landings.

Do you use FFB? 

As we know the damage model is currently broken, the plane is never in a fully fixed state.  Perhaps I had damaged something on the ground and there was no visual indication, hence I had this vibration.  If that is the case, I welcome the new ffb for a damaged Corsair.

"No initial damage that precludes take-off or landings", huh?  Ask the ground crew to repair the moment you spawn in.  When they're done, ask them again.  You'll find the aircraft is perpetually damaged, so I don't understand what you mean by that. 

 

Edited September 19 by JupiterJoe

[Thundersmoke]

I do.  I’ve got a VPRhino base.

My point was that despite any initial damage state the plane or landing gear might be wrongly experiencing at spawn (which I’m not disputing and needs to be fixed), I’m still able to functionally overcome it and use the plane without too much fuss.  It doesn’t stop me from taxiiing, taking off, landing, trapping, etc.  It’s obnoxious and the worst part of the module to me, but it’s still mostly mission-capable.

I’m also often taking off with disgustingly overweight loadouts, so even that’s doable.

RE: the vibration — one thought that occurred to me is that I sometimes feel my haptic seat / stick FFB from the flaps after takeoff as I exceed the airspeeds for the higher flaps settings.  I think it’s the feedback of them slowly blowing closed if I don’t manually raise them myself first.  But the end effect is long, sustained vibration in the stick that’s much longer than a normal flaps actuation. 

[Spidey002]

On 9/19/2025 at 2:02 AM, Thundersmoke said:

it’s never good when I catch myself thinking, “I’d rather be taxiing a Spitfire.”

LOL! Yes!

[OmasRachE]

@-Rudel- So about a month after your last post in this thread, is there anything new to tell about the Taxi Bug? Are the devs working on it, and is there a timeframe when we can expect a fix? Thank you.

[AG-51_Razor]

This latest update is UNBELIEVABLY DISAPOINTING!! I don't know which is more infuriating, the lack of any kind of improvements or the absence of any comment from M3. 

[Ghostrider 147]

31 minutes ago, AG-51_Razor said:

This latest update is UNBELIEVABLY DISAPOINTING!! I don't know which is more infuriating, the lack of any kind of improvements or the absence of any comment from M3. 

I hoped to see some additions/fixes as well, but let's remember that software development takes time, especially for a complex simulator like DCS. It's better to wait and have a finished end result, than having a half-finished patch with a bunch of new bugs  

[AG-51_Razor]

I completely understand that and I am not advocating for a quick/half a$$ed fix however, when you look at the big picture and realize how long this module has been in development and take into account that this is the second month since M3 has not had an update, it is even more bewildering that M3 sees fit to sit back and say nothing to a rather large groups of paying customers.

[julpeuz]

This is indeed infuriating seing nothing happening or communicated.

 

I modified myself the default.lua files to get the proper bindings we should have had from the beginning. I know nothing in lua, just asked chatGPT. It was all done in less than an hour. I wonder what’s taking them so long.

[Sickdog]

I'll pile on as well. I'd be less frustrated if someone from M3 or ED would speak up and say something like "yes, we know it's a bug, we're working on it". It's so simple to least acknowledge the 7 pages of this thread with some sort of comment, we shouldn't have to rant and rave like this and build up such negative feelings in what is actually a great module otherwise. 

[GeoS72]

Gents, to be fair: please refer back to the post Rudel made about Acknowledging Bugs/Request List. This problem is cited on their Bug List and he did acknowledge it is a problem. He also stated that this would be addressed after they sorted the engine management problem.

With that being said, it's been approx 2 months since the engine management issues were addressed. I've rarely seen a dev be pro-active with updated bug reports. For the most part, they (not just M3) follow a long period of silence until they are ready to release "good" news. If a dev provides some form of update then they believe it forms a deadline and they are held accountable for it. So they keep quiet and let the users stew in their proverbial juices.

Am I happy about this silent treatment? NOPE! Does my level of frustration increase when there no updates after each patch? YUP! Does the level of frustration continue to grow when there's no mention in the forum (this thread)? A resounding YES!

After reviewing M3's bug report, I can honestly say, this problem is the most commented. One would assume this issue has greater visibility, which would equate to a higher priority to resolve.

All I can say is: I've recommended to my fellow squadron mates to avoid this module until key issues are fixed. Like the differential braking/feathering into the wind, and the damage model (potential tail wheel damage) at spawn-in. I refuse to fly this module until these issues are addressed. No training missions, no Corsair School (campaign), not even air starts! I'm pretty upset because being an early adopter, I expect the plane to perform adequately. I know that several of my squadron mates are disappointed but they were shocked to hear my say, "Don't waste your money now. Wait until it's fixed."

[OmasRachE]

I would have had a lot of understanding if they had said, “Sorry guys, this is a bigger problem,” or “We’re working on it, but it’s going to take a bit longer.”
But leaving us with changelogs that contain absolutely no (!) improvements for this module, without saying a single word about it, is very disappointing.
Even my inquiry from three weeks ago wasn’t worth a reply.
They should have called it early payment instead of early access.

[BIGNEWY]

19 minutes ago, OmasRachE said:

I would have had a lot of understanding if they had said, “Sorry guys, this is a bigger problem,” or “We’re working on it, but it’s going to take a bit longer.”
But leaving us with changelogs that contain absolutely no (!) improvements for this module, without saying a single word about it, is very disappointing.
Even my inquiry from three weeks ago wasn’t worth a reply.
They should have called it early payment instead of early access.

Hi, I know from your comment yesterday you are a bit new here, I would suggest you change expectations as things you want done quickly wont always happen that way or be done your way, devs have a lot to do and their priorities may be different from yours as they have a bigger picture of development tasks, they are also often smaller teams. I just want to save you from burning out to quickly as I have seen it many times with some here on the forum. 

thank you 

[julpeuz]

He might be new (and I kind of am myself), still his points remain valid.

 

[OmasRachE]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb BIGNEWY:

Hi, I know from your comment yesterday you are a bit new here, I would suggest you change expectations as things you want done quickly wont always happen that way or be done your way, devs have a lot to do and their priorities may be different from yours as they have a bigger picture of development tasks, they are also often smaller teams. I just want to save you from burning out to quickly as I have seen it many times with some here on the forum. 

thank you 

Thanks for the care @BIGNEWY. All the complaints and discussions aside, I still love DCS, and keep investing a lot of time and money. And I am not planning to stop this. But as I said, the problem is not, that there is no visible progress, the real problem is the lag of communication. I had my argument with @-Rudel- and stated that I don´t want to push them, but nearly two month of absolute silence and ignoring direct requests are realy disapointing. I do understand the concept of early access and I do understand, that resources are limmited. I am totally fine with for example the super carrier which is in early access for a long time and still lags some promised features, but it works and I can enjoy the module as it is. But in this case it is a gamebreaking bug, which in fact got patched in some time after the release. So one would expect that a devteam would focus stongly on resolving this and even if it´s a bigger problem, they would communicate a bit more. Just imagine the viper couldn´t taxi anymore as soon as winds exceed 3 knots... I would bet your team would go for some extra hours and deliver a hotfix asap. At least you and nineline would give some feedback from time to time. When you look at this thread I don´t think this is a question of me personally desiring some fancy optional feature. A lot of people want to be able to use the module they have paid for month ago. 

[BIGNEWY]

15 minutes ago, OmasRachE said:

Thanks for the care @BIGNEWY. All the complaints and discussions aside, I still love DCS, and keep investing a lot of time and money. And I am not planning to stop this. But as I said, the problem is not, that there is no visible progress, the real problem is the lag of communication. I had my argument with @-Rudel- and stated that I don´t want to push them, but nearly two month of absolute silence and ignoring direct requests are realy disapointing. I do understand the concept of early access and I do understand, that resources are limmited. I am totally fine with for example the super carrier which is in early access for a long time and still lags some promised features, but it works and I can enjoy the module as it is. But in this case it is a gamebreaking bug, which in fact got patched in some time after the release. So one would expect that a devteam would focus stongly on resolving this and even if it´s a bigger problem, they would communicate a bit more. Just imagine the viper couldn´t taxi anymore as soon as winds exceed 3 knots... I would bet your team would go for some extra hours and deliver a hotfix asap. At least you and nineline would give some feedback from time to time. When you look at this thread I don´t think this is a question of me personally desiring some fancy optional feature. A lot of people want to be able to use the module they have paid for month ago. 

I understand, but you should also understand that not all third partys have huge teams who can reply to every post on the forum, or meet every wish. Nineline and I are community managers / associate producers for Eagle Dynamics, its part of our role to reply to the users on our projects, social media, discord ect. 3rd partys often do not have the luxury of dedicated team members for replying so communication can seem slower, its not that they are ignoring you, they are often just busy with development. Bugs and tweaks get worked on and when they are ready they will be in change logs, again I only reply here to temper your expectations. The module is working even with any tweaks or issues that need to be refined, its just some issues take longer than others.

thank you 

[Saxman]

8 hours ago, GeoS72 said:

With that being said, it's been approx 2 months since the engine management issues were addressed.

I wouldn't call them addressed. There's still issues like overboosting when according to the POH it shouldn't be.

[Art-J]

^ Indeed. And for this very reason, with the engine simulation still being tweaked (I hope, as it's more important than anything else), I'm not surprised that landing gear hasn't been sorted till now. We're still within priority "schedule" given by Rudel. 

I really wish taxiing was sorted, but I wouldn't call the module unusable because of it. Corsair is still the only warbird I fly nowadays, warts and all.

[OmasRachE]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Art-J:

^ Indeed. And for this very reason, with the engine simulation still being tweaked (I hope, as it's more important than anything else), I'm not surprised that landing gear hasn't been sorted till now. We're still within priority "schedule" given by Rudel. 

I really wish taxiing was sorted, but I wouldn't call the module unusable because of it. Corsair is still the only warbird I fly nowadays, warts and all.

One could argue about whats more important, as this is an individual question in my opinion, but you are right, the devs stated that this one has a higher priority. But when this is such a challenge and takes month to tweak I am wondering, why they can´t put the diff breaking bug in between. This bug wasn´t an issue at release, so one could asume that they just have to redo whatever changes they have made to the module that caused this bug. That should be much easier than changing the simulation of the engine an a total new way. But I don´t know if my asumptions are correct, since there is no hint from the devs whatsoever. 

Edited 23 hours ago by OmasRachE

[Saxman]

2 hours ago, OmasRachE said:

One could argue about whats more important, as this is an individual question in my opinion, but you are right, the devs stated that this one has a higher priority. But when this is such a challenge and takes month to tweak I am wondering, why they can´t put the diff breaking bug in between. This bug wasn´t an issue at release, so one could asume that they just have to redo whatever changes they have made to the module that caused this bug. That should be much easier than changing the simulation of the engine an a total new way. But I don´t know if my asumptions are correct, since there is no hint from the devs whatsoever. 

It was STILL an issue at release, it just wasn't as bad.

[Art-J]

Yup, I admit I wasn't testing the plane at release with any wind at first, so wasn't aware of scale of the weathervaning part of the issue, but all the problematic rest (diff braking + tailwheel) was there right from day one. 

In either case, I guess there's less work to be done on engine now than it was initially, so let's hope we're closer to landing gear updates in near future.